This is an amazing, visually stunning movie. It's basically a tribute to the magic of cinema and man's imagination. This is one of the rare movies where the 3D really enhanced the story.

I wish I had a 3DTV, but unfortunately I don't. I'll have to settle for the 2D version.

Saw a preview showing of this in 3D back before it was released. Didn't really have any idea what it was going to be except for the ads I'd seen on TV beforehand. As it turns out it wasn't what I figured it would be, but I liked it quite a bit. Based on the ads I went in thinking it would contain many fantastical elements, and in reality it is really a straight forward story, but a very good one. The other surprise was the basic direction of the movie regarding the history of film making which I thought was great.

I am curious as to what it is that makes you feel that the use of 3D really enhances the story though? I've seen references like this from several reviews and I find them baffling. I'm not a 3D hater by any means, but I will say that it seemed no different than any other 3D movie to me. You either like it or you don't. What exactly is it that made this one different to you?

Saw a preview showing of this in 3D back before it was released. Didn't really have any idea what it was going to be except for the ads I'd seen on TV beforehand. As it turns out it wasn't what I figured it would be, but I liked it quite a bit. Based on the ads I went in thinking it would contain many fantastical elements, and in reality it is really a straight forward story, but a very good one. The other surprise was the basic direction of the movie regarding the history of film making which I thought was great.

I am curious as to what it is that makes you feel that the use of 3D really enhances the story though? I've seen references like this from several reviews and I find them baffling. I'm not a 3D hater by any means, but I will say that it seemed no different than any other 3D movie to me. You either like it or you don't. What exactly is it that made this one different to you?

ron

I was in the same boat as you... went in not knowing what to expect, and I was surprised not only that the story was grounded in reality, but also largely a tribute to real individuals and the magic of movie making.

As for the 3d's role in the story, watch the film again and take note of where M.S. "breaks the rules"... throwing the background out of focus, reducing and increasing the depth of field, bringing elements uncomfortably out of the frame. Despite the visual splendor, this is a character driven film. When he wants to underscore a sense of our protagonist being overwhelmed by his surroundings, the depth (think the train station scenes) extends almost to infinity. When we are meant to identify with someone, the focal blur comes in and we are forced to focus on the foreground. When we are meant to be intimidated by a character (eg, Sasha B. Cohen, or the dog), the 3d uses extreme negative parallax and the subject's face fills - and sometimes breaks the boundaries of - the frame. And on...

As someone who generally prefers "depth" to "pop", the viewing took some adjusting to; my wife commented that some of it made her feel uncomfortable. I mean, the very first shot (the Paris flyover) starts off out of focus; for a moment I thought something was wrong with the projector!

And of course, the 3d is an allegory for the creative process in early film making, when there were no real "rules". It is also an attempt to recreate the sense of wonder early audiences must have felt when first viewing moving pictures (think of the train in the cinema scene). Scorcese even blatantly taunts us with this, to the point of risking breaking the fourth wall, when he has Melies state that happy endings only happen in the movies. He must have felt confident enough in the process that the audience would feel immersed enough to not be taken out of the story.

WOW! I saw this film twice and I couldn't have explained Hugo's use of 3-D nearly as well as you! All I know is that it helped completely immerse me in the story, the charactors and their world.

You must be an engineer.

No, not an engineer; I just enjoy a good film. But thanks!

If you think about it, what Scorcese has done is simply to use 3d in the same way that he would use the 2d tools in his arsenal (to visually reinforce the intended emotion of a scene), whereas most 3d films simply use it to add depth/pop. It's the difference between setting up the shot and composing the shot.

On a snowy day here in Denver, just came back from the theater seeing this in 3D. Enjoyed it thoroughly. As previously mentioned, visually stunning. Great use of 3D. Not great depth to the story, but it all works. A tribute to the cinema. Would imagine a great 3D Blu ray purchase (no 3D for me yet however). I could easily see this winning Best Picture.

Scorsese definitely used 3D better than most other 3D films I've seen (technically as good as Cameron with Avatar but somewhat more creative in using it to push story points) and it's a wonderful film. However, I'm just not sold on 3D and don't know if I ever will be with the current technology. Maybe it's just my eyes but I just can't get 3D films to focus as sharply as 2D films; I get too much ghosting where the left and right images don't quite connect. If I could truly get the left and right images to be project into (and only into) my left and right eyes, respectively, it might make a convert of me. Until then, I see 3D being a step backward in film. It reminds me of the daring, creative uses of cameras that were happening at the tail end of the silent film area that suddenly went away when sound was introduced. This was caused by the need to lock the cameras down into heavy, soundproofed boxes while filming due the need to make the primitive sound recordings to synchronize with the films. Eventually, cameras got quieter and sound recording equipment got better and camera use became more daring again. Then color came in and everybody had to leap to it even though early color was actually pretty horrible looking compared to the best in black & white. Creative lighting went a step backwards to accomodate the needs of color film stock. Eventually, color film advanced enough to allow for very creative lighting once again. Right now, I think 3D filming is technically advanced but 3D viewing, whether in theaters or with 3D TVs, is rather primitive compared to 2D theatrical showings and HDTV (much less 4K and higher resolutions and higher frame rates that are being experimented with). I may go see the sequels to Avatar or The Hobbit films (which Jackson is filming in 4K and a higher frame rate) in 3D when they release but I can't think of much else that calls to me enough to see in 3D.

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Hugo-3.../35630/#Review
complains about lots of cross talk.
What is the deal with all these complaints about cross talk in Blu Ray reviews? As far as I understand the cross talk is not built into the transfer (unless cross talk canceling processing shows up as cross talk or the effect is greatly exaggerated beyond the fusing ability of the human visual system) but a limitation of the 3D display technology used by the reviewer and as such pointless in the review of the disc itself.

DVD Beaver has a review up and says the blu-ray is nothing short of astonishing both PQ & AQ. I thought the film was fine but was on the fence about buying it but may now get it just to have it for the eye candy. Again, even the fact that this is supposed to be one of, if not, the best use of 3D, it really added nothing at all to the presentation for me. Just another example of how 3D just isn't worth it.http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film3/blu-r...go_blu-ray.htm

I was in the same boat as you... went in not knowing what to expect, and I was surprised not only that the story was grounded in reality, but also largely a tribute to real individuals and the magic of movie making.

As for the 3d's role in the story, watch the film again and take note of where M.S. "breaks the rules"... throwing the background out of focus, reducing and increasing the depth of field, bringing elements uncomfortably out of the frame. Despite the visual splendor, this is a character driven film. When he wants to underscore a sense of our protagonist being overwhelmed by his surroundings, the depth (think the train station scenes) extends almost to infinity. When we are meant to identify with someone, the focal blur comes in and we are forced to focus on the foreground. When we are meant to be intimidated by a character (eg, Sasha B. Cohen, or the dog), the 3d uses extreme negative parallax and the subject's face fills - and sometimes breaks the boundaries of - the frame. And on...

As someone who generally prefers "depth" to "pop", the viewing took some adjusting to; my wife commented that some of it made her feel uncomfortable. I mean, the very first shot (the Paris flyover) starts off out of focus; for a moment I thought something was wrong with the projector!

And of course, the 3d is an allegory for the creative process in early film making, when there were no real "rules". It is also an attempt to recreate the sense of wonder early audiences must have felt when first viewing moving pictures (think of the train in the cinema scene). Scorcese even blatantly taunts us with this, to the point of risking breaking the fourth wall, when he has Melies state that happy endings only happen in the movies. He must have felt confident enough in the process that the audience would feel immersed enough to not be taken out of the story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave1216

On a snowy day here in Denver, just came back from the theater seeing this in 3D. Enjoyed it thoroughly. As previously mentioned, visually stunning. Great use of 3D. Not great depth to the story, but it all works. A tribute to the cinema. Would imagine a great 3D Blu ray purchase (no 3D for me yet however). I could easily see this winning Best Picture.

great. i don't have a 3d display or br and this movie is out of theaters. wish i had read about this earlier.

Wow. To each his own, but to me, that comment is akin to saying that sound, for you, added nothing to the presentation of Goodfellas.

That's not really a fair comparison. If you shot Joe Pecci's big scene from that film where he is constantly asking "Am I funny?" in 3D it would not increase the impact of that scene at all. His language, his cadence, the way he changes his voice and the emotion in his delivery of that line is what puts you on edge and makes you squirm in your seat wondering what will happen here. Having his face in front of the screen in 3D actually, in my opinion, would distract from his acting because that's what your eyes would be trying to focus on. The 3D in Hugo added some depth and dimension to scenes but it didn't create in me a more emotional connection to the characters or to what the film was about. That why a film like The Artist is so amazing and fun to watch. It's such basic moviemaking (and it is silent, by the way), no cinematic tricks to speak of, but you find yourself totally immersed in the film and its characters and find yourself smiling because of it. To me that's what movies are all about and anything that hinders that connection just isn't worth it. I went to Hugo hoping that my opinion might change but it hasn't.

Same here, I saw this in 2D and figured it was now or never to start getting into 3D, now that there's finally a good movie available for testing. So I saw it again in 3D. The 3D wasn't better than the 2D in any meaningful way. Yes, my eyes are perfectly capable of seeing the effect, I just couldn't see the point. The "uncomfortable 3D moments" mentioned earlier are equally uncomfortable in 2D.

Nevertheless it's a damn good movie either way. I'll probably buy the 3D version in case someone else wants to see it that way someday, but I don't plan on it.

I was in the same boat as you... went in not knowing what to expect, and I was surprised not only that the story was grounded in reality, but also largely a tribute to real individuals and the magic of movie making.

As for the 3d's role in the story, watch the film again and take note of where M.S. "breaks the rules"... throwing the background out of focus, reducing and increasing the depth of field, bringing elements uncomfortably out of the frame. Despite the visual splendor, this is a character driven film. When he wants to underscore a sense of our protagonist being overwhelmed by his surroundings, the depth (think the train station scenes) extends almost to infinity. When we are meant to identify with someone, the focal blur comes in and we are forced to focus on the foreground. When we are meant to be intimidated by a character (eg, Sasha B. Cohen, or the dog), the 3d uses extreme negative parallax and the subject's face fills - and sometimes breaks the boundaries of - the frame. And on...

As someone who generally prefers "depth" to "pop", the viewing took some adjusting to; my wife commented that some of it made her feel uncomfortable. I mean, the very first shot (the Paris flyover) starts off out of focus; for a moment I thought something was wrong with the projector!

And of course, the 3d is an allegory for the creative process in early film making, when there were no real "rules". It is also an attempt to recreate the sense of wonder early audiences must have felt when first viewing moving pictures (think of the train in the cinema scene). Scorcese even blatantly taunts us with this, to the point of risking breaking the fourth wall, when he has Melies state that happy endings only happen in the movies. He must have felt confident enough in the process that the audience would feel immersed enough to not be taken out of the story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by subavision212

That's not really a fair comparison. If you shot Joe Pecci's big scene from that film where he is constantly asking "Am I funny?" in 3D it would not increase the impact of that scene at all. His language, his cadence, the way he changes his voice and the emotion in his delivery of that line is what puts you on edge and makes you squirm in your seat wondering what will happen here. Having his face in front of the screen in 3D actually, in my opinion, would distract from his acting because that's what your eyes would be trying to focus on. The 3D in Hugo added some depth and dimension to scenes but it didn't create in me a more emotional connection to the characters or to what the film was about. That why a film like The Artist is so amazing and fun to watch. It's such basic moviemaking (and it is silent, by the way), no cinematic tricks to speak of, but you find yourself totally immersed in the film and its characters and find yourself smiling because of it. To me that's what movies are all about and anything that hinders that connection just isn't worth it. I went to Hugo hoping that my opinion might change but it hasn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Booth

I saw Hugo in both 3D and 2D. I agree with DVD Beaver, the 3D presentation wasn't worth the extra cost of the ticket.

Mark

Like I said before, those that seem to really like 3D will like it (and find it creative when used properly), and those that don't won't think it's anything special. Personally I continue to find it distracting and un-immersing. To me it all still looks like 2D things simply layered/stacked when in positive space, and cool but completely out of the flow when things come out into negative space. The other thing is that there is always the odd, unmistakable polarized look in the light on reflective surfaces from the glasses.

yeah but with my ht setup, i go to 2-3 movies a year. mostly the good 3d ones.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CatBus

Same here, I saw this in 2D and figured it was now or never to start getting into 3D, now that there's finally a good movie available for testing. So I saw it again in 3D. The 3D wasn't better than the 2D in any meaningful way. Yes, my eyes are perfectly capable of seeing the effect, I just couldn't see the point. The "uncomfortable 3D moments" mentioned earlier are equally uncomfortable in 2D.

Nevertheless it's a damn good movie either way. I'll probably buy the 3D version in case someone else wants to see it that way someday, but I don't plan on it.

so maybe i didn't miss out on a really special 3d movie. seems there is a split between the pro 3d hugo lovers and the 2d is good enough hugo fans. will rent on br and, if special, will buy

I was in the same boat as you... went in not knowing what to expect, and I was surprised not only that the story was grounded in reality, but also largely a tribute to real individuals and the magic of movie making.

As for the 3d's role in the story, watch the film again and take note of where M.S. "breaks the rules"... throwing the background out of focus, reducing and increasing the depth of field, bringing elements uncomfortably out of the frame. Despite the visual splendor, this is a character driven film. When he wants to underscore a sense of our protagonist being overwhelmed by his surroundings, the depth (think the train station scenes) extends almost to infinity. When we are meant to identify with someone, the focal blur comes in and we are forced to focus on the foreground. When we are meant to be intimidated by a character (eg, Sasha B. Cohen, or the dog), the 3d uses extreme negative parallax and the subject's face fills - and sometimes breaks the boundaries of - the frame. And on...

As someone who generally prefers "depth" to "pop", the viewing took some adjusting to; my wife commented that some of it made her feel uncomfortable. I mean, the very first shot (the Paris flyover) starts off out of focus; for a moment I thought something was wrong with the projector!

And of course, the 3d is an allegory for the creative process in early film making, when there were no real "rules". It is also an attempt to recreate the sense of wonder early audiences must have felt when first viewing moving pictures (think of the train in the cinema scene). Scorcese even blatantly taunts us with this, to the point of risking breaking the fourth wall, when he has Melies state that happy endings only happen in the movies. He must have felt confident enough in the process that the audience would feel immersed enough to not be taken out of the story.

Sorry to break up all that romantic rationalization, but the 3D is there only to make money. If Scorsese wasn't pressured by a desperate industry, he wouldn't give 3D a single thought.